Christopher Whiteside is the Conservative candidate to be the first directly-elected mayor of Copeland in the election which will take place on 7th May 2015. He lives and works in Copeland with his wife and family.
Chris is a former member of Copeland Borough council. He is a former parliamentary candidate, for the North West region in the European Parliament elections in 2014, and as the Conservative candidate for Copeland in the 2005 and 2010 General Elections.

When you ask people what they think is the most important issue facing Britain, very few will name our relations with the European union.

Although there are some people to whom the issue of Britain's role in Europe is very important indeed, it doesn't usually make it into the list of the top ten issues found by opinion pollsters to be of most concern to voters.

Conservatives have to be particularly careful not to sound obsessed by the European issue, because it can easily come over to voters as though we are neglecting the issues they care about - jobs, the economy, hospitals, schools, the cost of living - in favour of debates about Europe which sound abstract and irrelevant to the mother trying to put food on her children's table, the small businessman trying to keep his company afloat, the working man trying to keep his job, the doctor trying to help his patients, and all the other heroes who keep Britain going.

But here's the thing. What happens to Britain's relationship in Europe often strongly affects those issues - fuel prices, hospitals, jobs - which people do care about.

Here are three examples of how Britain's relations with the EU can affect things like fuel costs, jobs, and hospitals.

ENERGY COSTS

Recently the European Parliament voted on an incredibly difficult issue relating to the price of carbon. I doubt if one person in a hundred in Britain would think that sounds like something which has a significant affect on them. But those who don't are wrong.

A high price for carbon - which is what the EU Commission wanted to push for - would shove up fuel costs, affecting energy bills for homes and businesses and feeding through into the cost of living. Just what we don't need at the moment.

But a low price for carbon sends all sorts of wrong signals about the need to prevent pollution and, of particular relevance to Cumbria and the North West, reduces our chances of getting the new nuclear power plants which our country desperately needs to start building soon if we are to avoid major power cuts in the next decade without being dependent on Putin's Russia for gas.

JOBS

Britain is a trading nation and export a huge proportion of what we make. About half of those exports go to the EU - the other half to the rest of the world.

Which means that if we try to improve trade with the European Union in ways which damage our trade with the rest of the world - as linking our the pound too closely to the D-Mark once did, and scrapping the pound for the Euro would have been worse - we're in trouble. Equally, if we came out of the EU on the wrong terms and damaged our trade with the other countries of Europe, that would be catastrophic too.

HOSPITALS

The European union can affect our health service too. Originally the European Working Time Directive had an exemption for certain groups including hospital doctors. However there was a time limit on that exemption, and it has expired. Resulting in discussions with the EU about how this should be applied in Britain, and expressions of serious concern from senior doctors.

Because applying the EU Working Time directive too rigidly to the NHS would result in hospital closures.

So it's right that we have a debate on Europe. It's essential that we try to find allies to work to reform the EU, to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs, as long as we remain members. We would still have to work hard for a constructive relationship with the EU if we vote to leave it, because they account for so much of our trade.

And our negotiations with Europe, whether we are in or out, need to be guided by a ruthlessly hard-headed and pragmatic view of British interests, not by the idealists and fanatics at either end of the spectrum. Britain cannot afford to have starry-eyed pro-Europeans making key economic decisions on a political basis and putting a wish to be at the heart of Europe ahead of what actually works. But neither can we afford to allow our relations with our major traded partners to be wrecked by a visceral hatred of anything to do with Europe.

I was involved with the campaign to keep our currency from the word go - I was the Association Chairman in whose constituency William Hague launched the "Keep the Pound" campaign -and I believe that a positive approach to Britain's interests in Europe was right then and is right now. And that means support for a Europe of Nations as Mrs Thatcher proposed in her famous Bruges speech, and as William put it a few years later, explaining that our first choice was to be part of a reformed, democratic Europe, we want to be "In Europe, not run by Europe."

A REFERENDUM ON EUROPE

My parents' generation had a vote on whether Britain should be part of a European Economic Community - known then as the "Common Market" - but the British people have never had a vote on whether we want to be in the European Union as it exists today. I believe it would be a healthy thing to have a referendum on this issue.

The Conservatives are the only major party which has promised such a vote if we win the next general election. The Conservatives are also the only major party which can deliver such a referendum and can be be trusted to keep the promise to do so. We have a record of keeping promises like that, while Labour and the Lib/Dems have a record of breaking them.

At the 2005 election all Britain's major parties promised a referendum on what was then called the "European Constitution" and eventually became known as the "Lisbon treaty." The Conservatives kept that promise and voted for a referendum. The Liberal Democrat leadership whipped their MPs to abstain. Labour ordered their MPs to break their election promise, forced the treaty through without a referendum. Gordon Brown then disgusted supporters and opponents of the treaty alike by turning up to sign it on his own after the other leaders had gone, in the hope that nobody would notice.

I believe that a reformed, more democratic Europe would be good for both Britain and for other countries in Europe - good for jobs, good for the environment. But better democracy must begin at home, and that means letting the British People decide.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Heard an unbelievably bad interview given by Ed Miliband on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime - both I and a colleague thought it was a complete car crash.

He got off to a bad start by claiming that local Labour councils had helped people with expensive heating bills.

Hmm. Guess which recent Secretary of State for Energy has a lot to do with the system of fuel pricing which resulted in those expensive heating bills?

You've guessed it: one Ed Miliband.

Then he refused no fewer than ten times to admit that his policies would mean increased borrowing in the short term or explain how Labour would fund them. He called for a one year cut in the VAT rate. It was pointed out that this would cost £12 billion. He was asked how he would fund this and refused to answer. He was asked if this would increase borrowing in the short term and refused to answer, saying that it would lead to growth and cut borrowing in the medium term.

At one point he accused the interviewer, Martha Kearney, of not understanding his policy: I thought she understood perfectly, but even had he been right it would be his fault for not explaining it properly.

Not a good performance.

UPDATE

Miliband admitted to Channel Four the following day that this had been "not such a good interview" and readily proffered the admission he had repeatedly refused to give Martha Kearney, that

"a big VAT cut to stimulate the economy would mean borrowing more in the short term."

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Lots of smiles today in the Whiteside household, though I admit that both my son and myself are a little on the tired side this afternoon after completing our respective swimming challenges!

John completed his Swimathon 2013 challenge of 1000 metres - 40 lengths - in 50 minutes and we are very proud of him

I finished my 5,000 metres - 200 lengths - in one hour and fifty-five minutes. Which, as I have now completed this challenge in twenty consecutive years, that I have done a hundred kilometers in individual Swimathon charity events.

Another huge thank-you to all those who have already sponsored myself, my son, or both, for Swimathon 2013 in which we are raising money for Marie Curie cancer care. Between us we have so far raised well over £200 for cancer care.

Sponsorship has not yet closed: anyone who has not already sponsored us and would like to do so can support Marie Curie Cancer care by sponsoring either of us at the respective pages below.

The big day for Swimathon 2013 in Whitehaven has now arrived and at the time this post is scheduled to appear my son John and myself will be taking part at Copeland pool in Hensingham.

Another huge thank-you to all those who have already sponsored myself, my son, or both, for Swimathon 2013 in which we are raising money for Marie Curie cancer care.

As I have mentioned on earlier posts, this is a big event for me in two ways: the twentieth consecutive year I have taken part myself, which means I will have swum a hundred kilometers for charity in successive Swimathons if I finish the course, and the first year my son John is taking part.

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing
selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of
money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook
Headings said:"If you don't work you die."Rudyard Kipling, from "The Gods of the Copybook headings"

Saturday, April 27, 2013

In relation to the county council elections, in which I am standing for the "Egremont North & St Bees" division which includes St Bees, Moor Row, Bigrigg, and a chunk of the Mirehouse area of Whitehaven, Jim posted four questions yesterday, which I promised to answer today, and I've had a few on the doorstep. So here is a "Virtual Doorstep" with my answers to these questions.

1. The closure of the public toilets in the area, would you cut other spending in order for them to be re opened or not?
This is a Copeland Borough Council responsibility rather than a Cumbria County council one, so I am not in a position to promise that if elected to Cumbria County council I would reverse or vote against the decision of the Labour majority on Copeland to close the toilets.

However, I do consider that this is a great deal more important than some of the things which Labour in Copeland is spending money and this would be third on my list (after Parking and Bin collection in that order) which I would like to see reversed, funded by the efficiency savings which Copeland refuses to consider. It says something about the different quality of administration of different councils in Cumbria, all of which are coping with the same different financial situatoion, that Eden can keep public toilets open in a small village like Threlkeld while Copeland can't in a town the size of Whitehaven.

2. The condition of the roads here in Copeland, (meadow road looks a lot like the dark side of the moon at the moment. Would you use more of our money to fix them?

This one is a Cumbria County Council responsibility and the condition of the roads needs to be improved. I would look to improve the standard of road maintenance by doing it in a more cost-effective way e.g. getting it right first time: fix roads properly with one visit rather than putting in a series of temporary repairs which have to be done again after a few weeks, costing more in the long run. I'd like to see a higher proportion of the budget spent on maintaining our existing infrastrucure properly rather than putting in new schemes which we don't have the money to maintain.

3. Bin collections, would you aim to cut other spending in order to fund weekly bin collection?

Another Copeland one, but I would certainly support weekly bin collection, and what's more it would not cost local taxpayers much because central government offered to pay most of the tab for councils which go back to weekly collection. Sadly Copeland Council has a "not invented here" syndrome with almost everything the government proposes and turned it down.

4. Parking charges in Whitehaven, would you aim to help the town regenerate by reducing or better still eliminating parking charges?

Absolutely yes. Again, parking is mainly the reponsibility of Copeland Borough Council but in 2011 when I was a Copeland councillor I voted to amend the budget by reducing the Special Responsibilty Allowances paid to councillors and using the money to cut Car Parking charges, including a period of free parking. So although I can't promise to deliver this if elected to Cumbria County Council, it is on the record that I voted for it when I was on Copeland Borough Council.

What is your attitude to the Reponsitory proposals?

We already have hundreds of tons of nuclear by-products right here in West Cumbria and we need to work with the nuclear industry, all levels of government, and local communities to find a safe, appropriate long-term solution.

I supported the MRWS process as a means to establish the facts around where and when a suitable repository might be built. Any such proposal would have to be geologically sound and have majority support in the local community, proven through a district-wide referendum.

In the interests of transparency let me declare an interest: I work for BT but am not personally involved in the plans to rollout Broadband service in Cumbria. All the information in this post is already in the public domain.

The "Connecting Cumbria" initiative is still awaiting EU approval, but meanwhile faster broadband continues to roll out in a series of Cumbrian towns.

More than 19,000 homes and businesses in Barrow-in-Furness and over 11,000 in Workington are getting faster broadband service in the next few weeks as engineers complete local investment programmes.

These towns follow Penrith, Carlisle and Kendal where fibre is already available, and will be followed shortly by Dalton-in-Furness, Kirby Lonsdale, Maryport and Whitehaven.

Burton-in-Kendal and Newbiggin-on-Lune are earmarked for upgrades by the end of Spring 2014, taking the total number of homes and businesses across Cumbria able to benefit as a result of BT’s £2.5 billion fibre roll-out programme to more than 111,000.

This commercial investment by BT is in addition to the Connecting Cumbria partnership between the company and Cumbria County Council, which, providing EU approval does not take too much longer, will make fast, affordable fibre broadband to around 93 per cent of Cumbria homes and businesses by the end of 2015.

Mike Blackburn, BT’s regional director for the North West, said: “Research suggests that within 15 years fibre broadband could bolster the economy of a typical town by £143 million and create 225 new jobs, 140 new start-up businesses and 1,000 more homeworkers.

“The arrival of fibre in Barrow-in-Furness and Workington can really help local firms in these economically challenging times, opening up new ways of working and speeding up vital operations, such as file and data transfers, conferencing and computer back-up, all of which may also help cut costs.”

This investment has been welcomed by community leaders and MPs accross the political spectrum, who recognise that High-speed digital connectivity is a defining factor in building long-term success for Cumbria's economy

BT’s fibre footprint currently passes more than 15 million UK homes and businesses. It is expanding all the time and is now due to pass two-thirds of UK premises – e.g. around 19 million homes and businesses – by Spring 2014, at least 18 months ahead of the original timetable.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Several months ago Cumbroa County Council, the UK government, and BT signed a £51 million deal to bring faster broadband to Cumbria, particularly rural areas of the county.

This project, called "Connecting Cumbria," should deliver speeds of up to 80Mbps to Cumbrian homes and businesses, and is desperately needed to help businesses in general, and small businesses in particular, bring jobs to the county and help lift the local economy out of recession.

It will eventually happen, but unfortunately European Union signoff has been delayed, and the council cannot start work on the project until "Major project approval" is given.

The irony is that this is not a case of asking the EU to cough up the money: some is coming from the UK government, some from the county council, and some from BT. But under EU law the project needs an agreement from the Commission that the project is not anti-competitive before we can spend our own money on improving our own infrastructure.

Annoying as the delay is, the EU's final sign off on the project is expected shortly.

Cumbria county council officers say they have submitted plans to Brussels and answered questions about Connecting Cumbria.

“At the moment we are still confident that we can meet the deadline of supplying superfast broadband to 93 per cent of premises by the end of 2015,” a spokeswoman said.

Meanwhile BT is plowing on with further enhancements to Broadband in Cumbria over and above the "Connecting Cumbria" programme, which fortunately do not need EU approval - see post to be submitted on Saturday.

Swimathon 2013 starts today and in another two days both my son John and myself will be taking part at Copeland pool in Hensingham. It will be a bit of a change from charging around the county on behalf of various county council candidates, and campaigning in St Bees, Moor Row, Bigrigg, Mirehouse, and the rest of what the boundary commission in their wisdom called the "Egremont North and St Bees" ward myself.

Another huge thank-you to all those who have already sponsored myself, my son, or both, for Swimathon 2013 in which we are raising money for Marie Curie cancer care. Thanks to your generosity my son has reached double his fundraising target and I am more than half-way to mine.

As I have mentioned on earlier posts, this is a big event for me in two ways: the twentieth consecutive year I have taken part myself, which means I will have swum a hundred kilometers for charity in successive Swimathons if I finish the course, and also first year my son John is also taking part.

We will both be doing the Swimathon at Copeland pool this Sunday: I am attempting the full 5,000 metres (200 lengths), while my eleven year old son who is down for a less demanding challenge is simply going to swim as far as he can.

Anyone who has not already sponsored us and would like to do so can support Marie Curie Cancer care by sponsoring either of us at the respective pages below.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

It's interesting to compare the fuss the Labour party in Cumbria is making about two payments: in one case they are asking questions about a bill for £700 which in the event was not paid by the taxpayer.

In the other case, the Labour party are complaining about the fact that other people are asking questions - they object even to people asking about the cost to the taxpayer of a payoff which could easily be a thousand times larger than £700.

The first case concerns transport bills to two events which Police and Crime Commissioner Richard Rhodes attended in his official capacity. It was agreed that because of the long hours he had been working it would not be safe or appropriate to drive himself. Someone in his office therefore booked a chauffeur driven car.

To quote the Chief Executive of what used to be the police authority and is now the police commissioner's department, Stuart Edwards:

“As a result of the long hours the Commissioner was working it was decided for personal safety reasons that support would be provided in terms of a driver for some evening functions with long and late return journeys. When the Commissioner was appraised of the cost he immediately stopped the practice of hiring drivers. The Commissioner has personally reimbursed the full cost of the journeys. A review took place with alternative arrangements now being progressed.”
I believe in transparency and therefore that people should be free to ask questions about how public money is spent. I also believe that Richard Rhodes acted entirely honorably and that in no other country in the world could something as trivial as this led to arrests and calls for resignations. And perhaps certain people should be thinking about taking planks out of their own eyes. Some of the stirring on this subject has come from two of Cumbria's members of parliament. Did either of them call for the resignation of any of the fellow MPs of their own parties who submitted expenses claims which were far more egregious?

And then we have the early retirement of the Chief Executive of Cumbria County Council. And senior councillors from the same party which has been asking questions about a £700 bill are telling people to "keep their noses out" of an issue which could potentially cost taxpayers much larger sums of money.

Labour councillor Barbara Cannon told the Cumbria Newspapers Group that "She's been paying into her pension fund. It's what she's entitled to."

This fundamentally misses the point. When someone retires early, that is by definition a change to their employment and pension arrangments, which may possibly save the authority (and the taxpayer) money or may potentially cost more, depending on the detail. It is entirely legitimate for the public to want to know whether changes in the council's officer structure will save money or cost them more.

When I was a councillor myself I can recall taking part in discussions about the early retirement of very senior council officers, including a Chief Executive, on more than one occasion. Sometimes such proposals fitted in with what was going on in the authority, and saved money. I can also recall instances where the first bid from a CEO who wanted to retire would, if we had accepted it, have cost the local taxpayer a fortune.

The convention at the moment is that the salaries of senior public servants are published but that their pension arrangements are confidential. I may return to the consistency of this at another time. The leader of Cumbria County Council has stated that the senior officer restructuring which includes the CEO's retirement will save the council money in the medium to long term and a council spokesman has said that

"we will be explaining more about the financial savings resulting from the revised senior management arrangements once new interim arrangements are in place - and these will reflet the budgetary implications of the Chief Executive's early departure."

Which is fair enough But Labour in Cumbria appears to have a question to answer: do you believe in transparency or not? You cannot expect anyone to take you seriously if you demand the right to ask questions about £700 but instruct other people to "Keep your noses out" when they ask questions about far larger sums of money.

To insist on transparency when it suits the political convenience of the Labour party but demand confidentiality when transparency doesn't suit the political convenience of the Labour party is not going to impress anyone.

GDP figures are out and show small positive growth between the last two quarters.

Only 0.3% but that's a great deal better than going backwards.

Which means that Britain has officially avoided a triple-dip recession.

Not sure whether the noise or gnashing of teeth was louder from Labour HQ or the BBC newsroom, but the fact that we're not now going to get a slew of "Recession!" headlines will be good for confidence and investment.That will help Britain inch that bit further towards a genuine recovery which will mean more people in jobs, higher household incomes, and better progress on cutting what is still a terrifyingly-large government deficit.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Following poor financial results, Tesco has abandoned about a hundred major projects for new or enlarged stores, including the proposed expansion of the Whitehaven Tesco store at Bransty.

It would be comparatively easy for someone on either side of the political divide to try to write a point-scoring piece trying to blame one's political opponent's, but although the Labour administration at Copeland Borough Council do have a sort of "reverse Midas touch" in which everything associated with them turns to ashes, it looks like this one really is down to the global economic climate - Tesco have just lost vast sums of money on a venture in the United States.

The expansion of Tesco's Whitehaven store would have brought about £20 million of investment and 150 jobs to West Cumbria, so this is extremely disappointing news.

The Prime Minister has promised to "keep going" by scapping planned fuel duty rises proposed by the last government.

Speaking in Derbyshire he referred to the negative impact which increases in "really big bills" have on both ordinary households and the economy. It is now "understood to be unlikely" (to quote the Daily Telegraph here) that there will be any further duty increases between now and the General Election, unless the price of oil falls sharply and triggers the fuel price stabliser to change direction.

David Cameron said: “The truth is this, when we got in, the previous government had set out a
whole lot of plans for fuel duty increases. It was like a whole lot of
unexploded bombs which we have had to try and defuse.”

“We have cancelled and delayed almost all of these fuel duty increases. We
even cut fuel duty on one occasion. We will keep going to try and keep those
fuel duty increases off, recognising that it is the really big bills that people
really care about and want help with.”

The last Labour government introduced a fuel duty escalator in its final budget which involved increasing the tax on petrol and diesel by a penny per litre above inflation until at least 2014-15.

The Coalition has already blocked 13 pence worth of rises on fuel, at a cost of about £6 billion to the Exchequer. Further rises of at least 4p or 5p per litre would be expected before the next election without renewed action.

David Cameron also promised to look at additional incentives for those who drive "really fuel efficient cars"

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Yesterday the UK won a case at the European Court, which ruled that Brtiain's long-standing ban on paid-for TV election commercials, associated with the provision of a certain number of free party political broadcasts, does not interfere with free speech.

This is an issue where theory and practice pull in different directions for me.

In theory, and particularly in the internet age, it seems at first obvious that political advertising should be allowed. The ban is a survival from an age where there was no internet and almot everyone voted for one of two parties, so fairness could easily be acheived by giving each of those two parties the same number of party political broadcasts.

That situation no longer applies

And yet ...

In the United States political TV advertising is both effective and extremely expensive. That is the main reason why political campaigning costs an impossible amount of money and only those who are extremely rich theselves or can raise vast amounts of money from supporters can aspire to high office.

There is also considerable evidence of a positive correlation between how much politics costs in a country and the extent to which politicians have to spend all their time raising money instead of addressing the issues which the country needs addressed.

And making politics much more expensive would also tend to squeeze out the small parties. In the short term this might be in my political interests as a Conservative, but I don't think it's in the country's interests.

The arguments which Mike Smithson makes today on Political Betting.com in favour of allowing political adverts on TV seem at first to be very powerful. But I suspect that the practical impact on British politics would have been dire. Thank goodness that by European Court decided - by a narrow margin - to allow us to make up our own minds on the subject.

"Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of
Maine" –

"Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa, Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"

(which referred to an illegitimate child who Cleveland had allegedly fathered.)

During the 1952 Presidential election the republicans had a campaign song "I like Ike" referring to their candidate Dwight D (Ike) Eisenhower. One Democrat retorted that

"I like Mickey Mouse, but I'm not going to vote for him either"

The country, however, decided that they did like Ike and he was duly elected.

One of the most memorable phrases that I recall from an election, not necessarily for the right reasons, came from an election in St Albans in 1987 or 1992, when Peter Lilley, the Conservative MP, was seeking re-election. When she was handed the microphone in a loudspeaker van driving round my ward, a sixteen year old Young Conservative came out with this little gem ...

"We're very clever, we're not silly,We all vote for Peter Lilley!"

God only knows what my electors thought of that one, but Peter was duly re-elected.

Whatever else you may say about them, the late and largely unlamented Federation of Conservative students came up with some classic posters. When three Labour MPs visited Afghanistan while the country was under soviet occupation, one of them (Ron Brown MP) was quoted as saying

"We looked around in vain for tanks."

However, despite this quote, the Labour MPs concerned also posed for photographs in front of a tank, and Brian Monteith, later a member of the Scottish parliament, managed to get the rights allowing him to use one: he produced a poster featuring the three Labour MPs in front of a soviet tank, the words from Ron Brown quoted above, and the caption in big letters at top and bottom:

On Friday in Nuneaton, David Cameron launched the
Conservative Party's local election campaign.

In a speech delivered to Party supporters, the Prime
Minister set out the three main reasons why people should vote Conservative in
the elections on 2 May.

Number 1: The services on your streets

Because Conservatives in Government have given local
councils much more power and freedom, it really matters who you vote for in
these local elections. Under Labour's rule by Whitehall diktat, local democracy
was eroded. We've scrapped Labour's top-down regime. The RDAs, Regional
Assemblies and Government Offices for the Regions have all gone. Now councils
have more power and it is your vote that decides who is running these councils
and the services we all rely on.

Number 2: Fighting for the pound in your pocket

Conservative councils understand it is your money
that they spend. Every single pound in your pocket has been hard-earned and
Conservative councils are fighting to keep it there.
That's why this year, on an average Band D Bill,
Conservative councils continue to charge lower levels of council tax than Labour
or Liberal Democrats.

Conservatives in Government have also given councils
money to freeze council tax because during these tough times we want to be on
the side of hardworking families. On average, this has delivered a 10 per cent
real terms cut in council tax - real help with the cost of living. By contrast,
under the last Labour Government council tax more than doubled.

But Conservative Councils are not just charging lower
council tax, they are also cutting costs in the back office so money can be
spent on protecting the frontline services local people rely on. Hammersmith
& Fulham, Bournemouth, and Cotswolds are just some of the councils who are
clamping down on waste to cut costs and keep council tax low for their
residents.

Number 3: The future of our country

Conservatives are not just fighting for the services
on your streets, or the pound in your pocket. We are also fighting for the
future of our country:

Britain's deficit has been cut by a third

Net migration is down by a third

1.25 million new jobs have been created in the private sector

There are a record number of young people starting
apprenticeships

Right to Buy has been boosted to help people buy their own home

Income tax has been cut for 24 million hardworking people

Fairness is being returned to our welfare system by capping benefits
and making sure it always pays to work

David Cameron ended his speech by saying 'don't let
Labour do to your council what they did to our country' and called on supporters
to join the Conservative Party's local election campaign.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

I hope I was not the only person from a mainstream political party who was very uncomfortable with the question Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs select committee, asked Home Secretary Theresa May today about the delays in deporting Abu Qatada to Jordan.

Not because I disagree that both the present government and the previous one were right to seek his deportation. I share Mrs May's "frustration" at the delay it has taken since the last government started deportation proceedings around a decade ago, to get a satisfactory result.

But, but, but, and again but (as Ian Fleming might have written)

This is a better country to live in because we have independent courts. However annoying and infuriating we may often find it when a court makes what we may think is the wrong decision, I would rather live in a country where ministers of whatever party have an independent check on their ability to act which insures that they don't have total power.

And when a politician asks the question Keith Vaz asked today, "who is to blame" over a court decision he doesn't like, I feel uncomfortable. Even when I don't like that decision either.

Not to mention that there is plenty of blame to go round - as mentioned above, governments involving all political parties have been trying to put Qatada on a plane to Jordan for around a decade and for most of that time Mr Vaz's party was in power.

The price we pay for a free society is that sometimes our enemies use those freedoms against us. Yes, let's work to put that right - but through the proper channels. Don't let the terrorists and their sympathisers trick us into pulling down the very freedoms and safeguards which make us the free society they so hate.